The Moral Dilemma of Every Color Revolution Coup and Democratic Security Movement
The tactics employed by participants in every Color Revolution coup and “Democratic Security” movement are practically the same, with the only difference between those two being the political cause that they strive to advance, which is the primary basis upon which others subjectively determine their legitimacy and thenceforth decide whether “the ends justify the means” or not.
Antifa-BLM vs. MAGA
The world is divided over Wednesday’s events in Washington DC and whether or not the protesters were justified in storming the US Capitol to protest what they sincerely believe was last year’s rigged election. In my analysis later that day titled “Color Revolution In DC: Anti-Constitutional Coup Or Democratic Security Movement?”, I explained that the difference between Color Revolution coups and “Democratic Security” movements is intent since they both practically employ the same political technologies. The former aims for regime change and was represented most notoriously in recent months by Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” (BLM), whereas the latter aspires for regime reinforcement (the opposite of regime change) and is driven by members of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement that Trump inspired. What’s most interesting to observe when discussing these two very similarly executed events is that each side passionately hates the other despite embracing the same tactics. It’s also curious to note that the Mainstream Media vehemently supported Antifa-BLM but is dead-set against its MAGA manifestation.
Two Sides Of The Same Tactical Coin
On the surface, it appears as though both sides are behaving hypocritically, but the reality is that they each have their reasons for holding their respective positions. The moral dilemma of every Color Revolution coup and “Democratic Security” movement is whether or not they’re legitimate, which is a subjective determination made by each and every person based primarily upon the political cause that they strive to advance. Upon reaching a decision on this, each person then asks themselves whether “the ends justify the means” or not. In fact, since Color Revolution coups are strategically offensive whereas “Democratic Security” movements are strategically defensive, it can even be said that labeling each manifestation as one or the other implies tacit support or opposition to whatever the cause may be. Playing devil’s advocate, Antifa-BLM wanted to violently overthrow Trump, yet they sincerely believed that they were doing so to defend democracy. Regarding MAGA, it resorted to violence to stop the steal which they sincerely believed had defrauded democracy. In other words, both movements are simultaneously Color Revolution coups and “Democratic Security” movements.
Perfect Objectivity Is Impossible
Therein lies the crux of the matter since it’s impossible to be perfectly objective when discussing this since one must ultimately determine which is more offensive and defensive, and subsequently, which of them has the legitimacy to possibly argue that “the ends justify the means”. Antifa-BLM’s opponents believed that these causes might have had some compelling slogans about racial justice and police brutality, yet didn’t think that they justified burning, looting, rioting, and even on rare occasions murdering with near impunity in dozens of the country’s major cities for months on end. Their proponents, however, felt that there was no other way to generate the attention needed to give their cause the momentum required to make a tangible difference. On the flip side, MAGA’s opponents thought that it was an unprecedented defilement of democracy to storm the US Capitol, though their supporters argue that such crimes against property pale in comparison to the one being committed against their democracy by those who they believe organized the greatest electoral fraud in American history.
Preconditioning & Triggers
Almost nobody is on the fence anymore regarding those two examples of Color Revolution technology being employed in America. Minds are already made up due to each individual’s partisan disposition and passionate beliefs, both of which it should be mentioned had been meticulously preconditioned prior to their movements going kinetic. Antifa-BLM were inspired by decades’ worth of political indoctrination getting them to hate almost everything that America stands for (the narratives of which were later propagated on a nationwide scale by opportunistic ideologues in the political, media, and popular cultural spheres), which turned them into tinderboxes waiting to blow the moment that another instance of police brutality occurred to serve as the trigger event. Likewise, MAGA spent the past two months sharing evidence purporting to prove that large-scale electoral fraud and other related crimes of corruption took place to steal the election from Trump, which similarly turned them into ticking time bombs which exploded during the trigger event of the Electoral College gathering to certify Biden’s alleged win.
“Do The Ends Justify The Means?”
Only those who sincerely believe — whether “rightly” or “wrongly” — that “the ends justify the means” can support breaking the law through property crimes and other acts of violence. That’s the ultimate question that observers of each movement must ask themselves, and which practically every person has already answered whether consciously or not. The Democrats and their Mainstream Media allies loudly believe that the ends of regime change against Trump do indeed justify the means of Antifa-BLM provoking nationwide riots for months on end, while many conservatives maintain that the ends of regime reinforcement in support of Trump do indeed justify the means of MAGA storming the US Capital to stop the steal and prevent an illegitimate placeholder from seizing power. No compromise can ever be reached between these ideologically contradictory forces which both aspire to advance maximalist political ends, and their growing popularity among their respective bases (comparatively quieter but nevertheless still observable in the conservative case) very strongly suggests that they’re bound to clash in the near future unless the state steps in.
Law Enforcement Is No Longer Politically Neutral
The precedent established by the state’s response to Antifa-BLM over the past half year proves that law enforcement is no longer politically neutral. Instead of universally enforcing the law as it’s written, they were tasked by political forces in various local and state jurisdictions to passively facilitate the nationwide crime wave by stepping aside and barely ever responding to events, let alone preemptively thwarting them. Those decision makers responsible for this had essentially exploited the law enforcement arm of the state for their own political ends, thereby defiling its previously (though admittedly sometimes imperfect) neutral nature. The harsh crackdown that was initiated against MAGA on Wednesday stands in stark contrast to law enforcement officers being ordered to stand down in the face of much more destructive Antifa-BLM unrest over the past half year. This hints that that the Democrats have more control over the bulk of the country’s security services than the conservatives ever did, thus confirming that Antifa-BLM have the Hybrid War edge over MAGA.
However one subjectively feels about Antifa-BLM and MAGA, they must objectively recognize that both movements employ near-identical Color Revolution tactics in pursuit of their polar opposite political aims. The only significant difference between them is the cause that they seek to advance, which in turn determines their legitimacy, whether one regards them as a Color Revolution coup or a “Democratic Security” movement, and if “the ends justify the means”. Everyone already has their own sympathies even if they don’t feel comfortable publicly expressing them for whatever their reason may be. The most “moderate” that someone can be is to condemn all manifestations of Color Revolution technology, be they offensive in support of regime change or defensive for regime reinforcement. That, however, is unrealistic since such political technologies are nowadays becoming so ubiquitous that condemning them is akin to condemning the digital technologies that helped them reach such epic proportions in recent years. Even so, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they must at least make an attempt to articulate any double standards if they’re sincere about honestly discussing all this.